Currently, there is one way to customize end of turn reinforcing. I suggest that, instead, a second line be added to the game making list that customizes the number of times you can do reinforcing at the end of your turn. The first line would contain adjacent, chained, parachute, and none. The second line would contain an entry spot for number of times you can do that type of reinforcing including unlimited.

Specifics/Details:

In short, there should be a category that determines the type of reinforcing(adjacent, chained, parachute, or none), and a category that determines number of times that you can reinforce(1,2,3,...10,...unlimited)

Currently, the only way to make a game that grants more than one reinforcement action is to play unlimited, and that limits us to only playing in a chained manner. I realize that playing an unlimited parachute game is slightly ridiculous, but I have a feeling other people will feel that way too and it will not be a game type that anyone will set up. However, I have an interest in playing a game in which I could have 2 parachute reinforcements at the end of my turn.

Adjacent seems to me to be a very unpopular type of reinforcing. I think that adjacent could be a much more popular type if we were allowed to increase the number of actions. Being able to reinforce 4 adjacent times keeps the manner of reinforcing fairly restrictive as the type adjacent should do while opening it up to being more useful if desired.

Chained style reinforcing would be improved as well by this change. At the moment, we have a choice between one chained reinforcement and unlimited chained. What about all the numbers in between 1 and infinity?

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

I feel that this small change will make end of turn reinforcing much more specific to maps. A lot of maps are pretty large and require more than one reinforcement action at the end of your turn. Unlimited makes armies far too fluid however, and drastically changes the game. Allowing more specific customization of number of actions will drastically improve gameplay.

Last edited by Cosmical on Tue Oct 14, 2014 11:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

probably not, because it is a horrible idea... kind of takes away a lot of the strategy/gameplay that goes into these settings... multiple adjacent/chained settings? how about just learning how to deploy, move your troops popular and not over attack? i play chained and rarely move troops at the end of a turn, because i think through my moves... oh, i forgot, most people use add/ons and such and don't really get the nuances of this game anymore on this site... maybe you should just suggest making an add/on that tells you how to move your troops at the end of your turn for the best possible results/outcome... *eyes rolling*... sorry, just a bad idea... let's add more bells and whistles onto a site that already has TOO MANY...-el Jesus negro

Thorthoth,"Cloaking one's C&A fetish with moral authority and righteous indignation makes it ever so much more erotically thrilling"

Holy Moly dude. That attitude is why discussing things on the internet is so difficult. All of what you said could have been said much more nicely.

"kind of takes away a lot of the strategy/gameplay that goes into these settings"

It takes absolutely nothing away. It gives more options. If you don't like the options, here's a novel idea: don't play games with those settings! Increasing customization and choice is hardly ever a bad thing....

As for questioning my ability to plan accordingly, back the hell off. I am actually quite good at that.

Cosmical wrote:It takes absolutely nothing away. It gives more options. If you don't like the options, here's a novel idea: don't play games with those settings! Increasing customization and choice is hardly ever a bad thing....

funny statement... most people around here think that the increase in options and gameplay have diluted the site and caused the membership to plummet from over 20K to under 10K this summer (9,740)... increasing the game options at this point in time does not seem at all wise for CC to do... aside from that, your idea is just a bad one at that...-el Jesus negro

Cosmical wrote:

Thorthoth,"Cloaking one's C&A fetish with moral authority and righteous indignation makes it ever so much more erotically thrilling"

I would be very surprised if increasing the options is actually the reason less people are members. Allowing more different gametypes does not eliminate the games that people used to like. I of course could not say what has decreased the membership of the site, you may be correct.

The main reason I want multiple reinforcements and NOT unlimited reinforcements, is maps like Feudal Epic and other maps with Autodeploy. I would like to make two reinforcements at the end of those turns so that I can more effectively move my troops to the front lines. Allowing for unlimited reinforcements completely eliminates the need to plan ahead and deploy smartly, which I agree with you should absolutely be an important part of a game. Unlimited reinforcing is for dummies.

It is an excellent idea. It's annoying that there is currently no middle ground between the extremes of Unlimited and the various single-fort option. Having something like a "fort 3X" option would create the possibility of some intermediate options.

Dukasaur wrote:It is an excellent idea. It's annoying that there is currently no middle ground between the extremes of Unlimited and the various single-fort option. Having something like a "fort 3X" option would create the possibility of some intermediate options.

you seem to have this mindset to keep adding and adding and adding... i don't see how you can't see that this waters down the true RISK aspect of the site and continues to lead to people just leaving... i don't think options like this are worth implementing and most of the new forts that have been seem to have helped lead people away in droves... hey, team CC knows best... let's keep watering down the RISK on the site, it might make RISK fanatics return in the numbers we once had (over 20K)... kind of funny how we had 22K members when we had fewer options and the game was closer to RISK... the more we add, the more we water down, the further we get from RISK, the fewer people remain... just a bad idea in my opinion...-eJn

Thorthoth,"Cloaking one's C&A fetish with moral authority and righteous indignation makes it ever so much more erotically thrilling"

I just don't understand the logic. You can still play the same way now as when there was 22k members. Create games that are the style you enjoy and foster a group of people that like that style.What if they left because there were not enough options, or the options that people prefer were being offered on other RISK sites?If this site offers the same gameplay options as every other site out there and delivers a quality site....shouldn't they all come back?Being exclusionary and deciding that some gameplay options are not worthwhile certainly is not going to win anyone back.

Dukasaur wrote:It is an excellent idea. It's annoying that there is currently no middle ground between the extremes of Unlimited and the various single-fort option. Having something like a "fort 3X" option would create the possibility of some intermediate options.

you seem to have this mindset to keep adding and adding and adding... i don't see how you can't see that this waters down the true RISK aspect of the site and continues to lead to people just leaving... i don't think options like this are worth implementing and most of the new forts that have been seem to have helped lead people away in droves... hey, team CC knows best... let's keep watering down the RISK on the site, it might make RISK fanatics return in the numbers we once had (over 20K)... kind of funny how we had 22K members when we had fewer options and the game was closer to RISK... the more we add, the more we water down, the further we get from RISK, the fewer people remain... just a bad idea in my opinion...-eJn

Yeah, we HAD 22K members, and they soon got bored and left, because at its core, RISK is a pretty dumb and simplistic game. If it was an interesting and absorbing game, they would still be here. The people who are still here are here because they found maps and settings that they found more interesting than the original game.

Cosmical wrote:I just don't understand the logic. You can still play the same way now as when there was 22k members. Create games that are the style you enjoy and foster a group of people that like that style.What if they left because there were not enough options, or the options that people prefer were being offered on other RISK sites?If this site offers the same gameplay options as every other site out there and delivers a quality site....shouldn't they all come back?Being exclusionary and deciding that some gameplay options are not worthwhile certainly is not going to win anyone back.

Well said! Anyone who wants to play a game on Classic with the original settings is welcome to do so. In fact, many such games are played. People who enjoy them are not in any way harmed by those who prefer something else.

When Baskin-Robbins adds Nutmeg-and-Cloves ice cream to its menu, it's not in any way hurting the little old ladies who still want vanilla.

I would be very surprised if increasing the options is actually the reason less people are members. Allowing more different gametypes does not eliminate the games that people used to like. I of course could not say what has decreased the membership of the site, you may be correct.

The main reason I want multiple reinforcements and NOT unlimited reinforcements, is maps like Feudal Epic and other maps with Autodeploy. I would like to make two reinforcements at the end of those turns so that I can more effectively move my troops to the front lines. Allowing for unlimited reinforcements completely eliminates the need to plan ahead and deploy smartly, which I agree with you should absolutely be an important part of a game. Unlimited reinforcing is for dummies.

Unlimited is also for those with a dodgy mouse, dodgy eyesight or a dodgy connection who find themselves fortifying to the wrong place and having to move troops back. I don't play anything else, for those reasons.It's not better or worse, just different - the same as Trench, Fog and the other options. One still has to deploy smartly, just differently, and for different reasons. It matters more whether one's troops are in contiguous regions.You may find that people leave the site in part due to the scorn poured on them by the 'purists' for the way they like to play the game.

Dukasaur wrote:When Baskin-Robbins adds Nutmeg-and-Cloves ice cream to its menu, it's not in any way hurting the little old ladies who still want vanilla.

kind of funny that a member of Team CC uses a Baskin Robbins reference... one of the greatest chains currently in decline that has been mounting a comeback for quite some time... sound familiar? i hope team CC isn't using Baskin Robbins as a rallying cry or template... GREAT ARGUMENT there... ha!!! i'm sorry, but the watered down gaming aspect of this site is a huge part of the issue going on around here and adding more bogus options is not the way to bring people back... oh, hang on... i see a windmill over the horizon!!! *cough*...-el Jesus negro

Dukasaur wrote:When Baskin-Robbins adds Nutmeg-and-Cloves ice cream to its menu, it's not in any way hurting the little old ladies who still want vanilla.

kind of funny that a member of Team CC uses a Baskin Robbins reference... one of the greatest chains currently in decline that has been mounting a comeback for quite some time... sound familiar? i hope team CC isn't using Baskin Robbins as a rallying cry or template... GREAT ARGUMENT there... ha!!! i'm sorry, but the watered down gaming aspect of this site is a huge part of the issue going on around here and adding more bogus options is not the way to bring people back... oh, hang on... i see a windmill over the horizon!!! *cough*...-el Jesus negro

At least my thread got hijacked by a delicious treat! It could be worse.

clangfield: you are correct. Unlimited is not just for dummies. I rarely play any games on my phone except for unlimited games. All others I only play on my laptop. And I do enjoy unlimited! I would like to see the option of determining the number of fortifications for yourself. 0, 1, and unlimited are good choices but I think being able to choose x forts would be cool.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Let's add more complicated features in order to amuse a few of the current members who overall will still drop out.

At this point, it doesn't matter what CC wastes their resources on.

EXACTLY!!!! "if we can just add one feature for each of our less than 10K remaining members, they will all stay!!!" just makes no sense to keep diluting the game of RISK down to how far they have diluted it. last night i found a ton of new features on the site i had never seen before and had not seen announced.... i find it even more hilarious that the things they are spending their time and effort and free labor force on, they don't even announce!!! what is the point?! it is like there is a "ghost site" for the uber nerds and a site for the rest of us... sigh...-el Jesus negro

Thorthoth,"Cloaking one's C&A fetish with moral authority and righteous indignation makes it ever so much more erotically thrilling"

I agree too! This is a website built for entertainment and there are certain features that would be entertaining. So why not do it? Because you're pessimistic. That is what you are telling me. Great reasoning.

I'm going to walk the other road, I'm going to be optimistic that this site still has 10,000 people playing and that we can have a damn good time without the 10,000 people that left. I'm going to make suggestions that will hopefully improve the game further for those that are here. You may see this site as a dead corpse. I see it as a wonderful site with fellow people that love RISK.

Your views that this site doesn't need anymore bells and whistles has been heard.

Cosmical wrote:I agree too! This is a website built for entertainment and there are certain features that would be entertaining. So why not do it? Because you're pessimistic. That is what you are telling me. Great reasoning.

I'm going to walk the other road, I'm going to be optimistic that this site still has 10,000 people playing and that we can have a damn good time without the 10,000 people that left. I'm going to make suggestions that will hopefully improve the game further for those that are here. You may see this site as a dead corpse. I see it as a wonderful site with fellow people that love RISK.

Your views that this site doesn't need anymore bells and whistles has been heard.

I was optimistic by encouraging debates about what would actually fix the problems with the site. That information is available. After much debate, I haven't become pessimistic; I've become realistic.

Suggestions such as yours have a negligibly beneficial impact but waste resources and our time. There's more important issues, which the CC admins have tried and seemingly have continuously failed to address. Obviously, this place is in the Great Decline; that's a fact. Adding another reinforcement option wouldn't correct the problem. You disagree because you're blind to the reality and are also highly self-interested in seeing your feature get passed--while the costs get passed onto everyone else. People like you need to be constantly reminded of this, which is why people like me won't simply shut up.

Cosmical wrote:I agree too! This is a website built for entertainment and there are certain features that would be entertaining. So why not do it? Because you're pessimistic. That is what you are telling me. Great reasoning.

I'm going to walk the other road, I'm going to be optimistic that this site still has 10,000 people playing and that we can have a damn good time without the 10,000 people that left. I'm going to make suggestions that will hopefully improve the game further for those that are here. You may see this site as a dead corpse. I see it as a wonderful site with fellow people that love RISK.

Your views that this site doesn't need anymore bells and whistles has been heard.

I was optimistic by encouraging debates about what would actually fix the problems with the site. That information is available. After much debate, I haven't become pessimistic; I've become realistic.

Suggestions such as yours have a negligibly beneficial impact but waste resources and our time. There's more important issues, which the CC admins have tried and seemingly have continuously failed to address. Obviously, this place is in the Great Decline; that's a fact. Adding another reinforcement option wouldn't correct the problem. You disagree because you're blind to the reality and are also highly self-interested in seeing your feature get passed--while the costs get passed onto everyone else. People like you need to be constantly reminded of this, which is why people like me won't simply shut up.

The "more important issues" are being addressed. I'm not as pessimistic as you about those, but I won't address that here since I've addressed it quite extensively in other places.

But there's no reason why we can't have small incremental improvements to the basic game even while we know that those alone won't fix what ails the site. To say that another reinforcement option won't save the site and therefore should be avoided, is a bit like saying that brushing your teeth won't cure liver cancer and therefore you should stop brushing your teeth while you wait for your surgery. In fact, the opposite is true: people who continue to try to improve their lives in small ways while waiting for life-saving surgery are the ones who are more likely to pull through. Giving up and saying "none of this matters anyway" becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.